Disposed

T.C.Praveen v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC10 Jun 2016WP(C)/36511/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging orders under Sections 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act, the Court granted two months to pay the principal sum under Section 7Q. For Section 14B, recovery is stayed for three months on condition that one-third of the demand is paid, pending appeal before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Two months to pay Section 7Q amount. Section 14B recovery stayed for three months if one-third of demand is paid.

T.C.Praveen Vs the Regional Provident Fund… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/20TH JYAISHTA, 1938 W.P.(C).No.36511 of 2015 (L)

¶5

PETITIONER(S):-

¶6

T.C.PRAVEEN

¶7

PROPRIETOR, GEM LIGHTS, UNIVERSITY JUNCTION, CUSAT P.O, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 022

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017

¶12

R1 & R2 BY ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.PRASANTH.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.36511 of 2015 (L)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶17

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16-2-2015 FROM THE
	1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-02-2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-11-2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1-1-2015 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED 1-9-2014 IN W.P(C) NO 22858/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN 2014(4) KLT 538 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:-

¶20

ANNEXURE R1(a) A STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF REMITTANCE. ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPOY OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA JUDFGMENT DATED 05.10.2009 IN RP. NO.937/2009.

Vku/-

[ true copy ]

K. Vinod Chandran, J

---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.36511 of 2015-L

¶25

---------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2016

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner is concerned with Exhibits P2 and P3 orders passed, respectively under Section 7Q and Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [for brevity “EPF Act”]. The petitioner contends that an appeal has been filed, with number as 124(7)/2016, before the Appellate Tribunal which is being constituted in Bangalore. The petitioner contends that if the recovery is made as of now, the appellate remedy would be frustrated.

¶28

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation would alertly point out that Exhibit P2 is an order passed under Section 7Q, where there can be no appeal filed. Payment of interest on amounts due is automatic, going by Section 7Q. In such circumstance, there can be no order with respect to Exhibit P2. Considering the fact that the amount claimed under Section 7Q is Rs.1,85,568/- [Rupees one

¶29

WP(C) No.36511 of 2015 - 2 -

¶30

lakh, eighty five thousand, five hundred and sixty eight], the petitioner shall be granted two months, starting from today, to pay the entire amounts.

¶31

With respect to the demand made under Section 14B, since an appeal and a stay application are pending before the Tribunal, the same shall be kept in abeyance on condition. The petitioner shall pay one-third of the demand made, within three months, upon which the proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till the appeal before the Tribunal is disposed of.

¶32

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶35

vku/-

¶36

[ true copy ]

T.C.Praveen v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.C.Praveen v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palakkad District Estate Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Basheer Vs Kottayan Municipality

K.C.Arumughan Vs Ottapalam Municipality

Solly Sabu Vs Ali Kunhi

Abdul Jaleel K.P Vs the State of Kerala

Anish Vs Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O)